I have a friend who years ago
abandoned dispensationalism and premillennialism and plunged into reformed
theology and extreme Calvinism. The way he explains limited atonement is as
follows: Christ died for all men without distinction but Christ
did not die for all men without exception. By this he means that
Christ died for all classes of people (male and female, bond and free, Jew and
Gentile, etc.) but that he did not die for every single individual. In 1996 my
friend made the comment that John MacArthur believes that Christ died only
for the elect, that is, that Christ bore God's wrath and paid sin's penalty
only for the elect, not for all men.

At first I did not believe that John MacArthur held to a
limited atonement because I had found no evidence of this in his writings and
commentaries. In his earlier published writings he seemed to argue for an
unlimited atonement. I also knew that Charles R. Smith, who was a close
associate of Dr. MacArthur and who served as Dean of the Master's Seminary,
taught very clearly that Christ did not die only for the elect but that He paid
the penalty for the sins of the whole world. He sets forth this position in a
booklet entitled Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? (published by BMH
Books). Also I knew that John MacArthur signed the IFCA doctrinal statement
which says, "We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross FOR ALL
MANKIND as a representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice" (Section
3b). Dr. MacArthur signed this statement and gave his hearty agreement to it.

We wrote to John MacArthur to ask him his position on this
matter. Dr. MacArthur did not respond personally, but his Personal Assistant,
Dave Swavely, answered on his behalf with a five page letter. In this letter
dated 3/20/96 Dave Swavely quoted favorably from A.W.Pink. Pink's quotation said
this: "Not one for whom He died can possibly miss heaven." If words mean
anything, then this means that Christ did not die for those who miss heaven. In
other words, Christ did not die for the non-elect or Christ died only for
the elect. In Tape GC 80-123 MacArthur uses this same quote by Pink and cites it
in a favorable sense. Apparently MacArthur agrees that not one for whom Christ
died can possibly miss heaven. Since Judas missed heaven, this means that Christ
did not die for him, nor for Pharaoh, nor for anyone who persists in unbelief.

In this same letter Swavely, writing on behalf of John
MacArthur, makes the following statement which seems to argue strongly for a
limited atonement position: "He [Christ] did not Ďpay the penalty of siní for
those who reject Him, because if He did then they would not have to pay it
themselves in hell." According to this statement, the position of Dr. MacArthur
seems to be that Christ did not pay the penalty of sin for all men, but only for
the elect. This implies that His substitutionary death was not for all mankind,
but sinís penalty was paid only for the elect.

Swavely also stated the following: "The atonement is limited
in the sense that Christ acted as a substitute only for those who believe in
Him." This implies that Christ did not die as a substitute for those who persist
in rejecting Him (those who have not been chosen).

One tape which presents John MacArthur's position on the
extent of the atonement is Tape GC 56-19 (Titus 2:11, "Saving Grace," part 2,
Tit. 2:11, 1993). Almost the entire message is devoted to the extent of the
atonement. In this message MacArthur teaches that the death of Christ is for all
men, but the non-elect benefit from Christ's death only in a temporal sense
(they are not destroyed instantly, they benefit from the rain and sun, they
benefit from "common grace" etc.). However only the elect benefit from the death
of Christ as far as an actual payment for their sins.

Swavely, in his letter, explains MacArthur's position in this
way: "He did not pay the penalty of sin for those who reject Him...but the
ramifications of His sacrifice extend beyond that primary purpose of securing
salvation for the elect. All of God's creatures, including those men and women
who reject God, reap many benefits from the death of Christ, not the least of
which is life itself. God could have justly destroyed the world immediately
after Adam and Eve sinned, but He graciously allowed it to flourish and
sustained it by His hand for thousands of years....So John believes that even
the non-elect are affected positively as a result of the atonement of
Christ....The atonement is limited in the sense that Christ acted as a
substitute only for those who believe in Him. The atonement is unlimited,
however, in the sense that its benefits extend to all of God's creation."

What good are these
"temporal benefits" as far as the non-elect are concerned? Would not the
non-elect have been better off if God had destroyed the world immediately after
Adam and Eve sinned? Jesus told Judas that it would have been better if he had
never been born. There is a sense in which this is true for all those who
persist in unbelief. Not ever having been born is better than spending eternity
in the lake of fire.

Thus, when John MacArthur teaches that Christ died for all
men (using verses such as John 3:16; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:6 etc.), what he
really means is that there are some temporal blessings that benefit the
non-elect. He does not mean that Christ paid sin's penalty for the
non-elect. According to Tape GC 56-19 and according to Swavely's letter, John
MacArthur believes and teaches that Christ died as a Substitute only for the
sins of the elect.

MacArthur's Denial That
Christ Died for all Mankind in His Public Tapes

In 1995 John MacArthur gave a message on 2 Corinthians 5:14
(Tape GC 47-36). In this message MacArthur made it very clear that Christ died
as a Substitute only for those who believe in Him. The following is transcribed
directly from this tape. These are MacArthur's words:

The atonement has its unlimited aspects. You see
benefiting from the atonement in unlimited ways the human race through
temporal deliverance (emphasis mine). He's the Saviour of all men
in a temporal sense (emphasis mine), that is, He doesn't destroy them
all immediately upon their sin. You see providence, God's care, in a very
general sense. He (God) lets the rain fall on the just and the unjust,
divine goodness. And then you see gospel invitations given to every man
and every man held culpable for the rejection of that invitation to be
punished eternally because he will not believe. All those indicate to us
that there is an unlimited aspect of Christ's work on the cross, but when
you talk of "Substitution" you now are talking about the limited aspect of
it. (Tape GC 47-36)

The atonement can only be a real substitution for those
who died in Christ (believers). In the substitutionary sense He died only
for those who died in Him (those who put faith in Jesus). He is the
Substitute only for those who believe (emphasis mine), otherwise you
have a major problem because you have Christ dying as a Substitute for the
whole world. That means He was bearing the sins of the whole world in a
substitutionary sense. If in fact He was carrying Himself to the cross as
a Substitute for the sins of every person who ever lived, He would
therefore have done away with the wrath of God and procured for them
eternal life and we would all be universalists (Tape GC 47-36).

He did not die as a Substitute, taking away the sin of
people who don't believe in Him or He would have procured a salvation for
them and everybody would be saved. In the substitutionary sense He bore
only the sins of those who ultimately would put their faith in Him
(emphasis mine) because they were His (Tape GC 47-36).

Another tape which clearly reveals John MacArthur's position
on the extent of the atonement is GC 47-38, "The Ministry of Reconciliation" (2
Cor. 5:18-21), 1995. The following are MacArthur's words exactly transcribed:

Did Christ actually pay the penalty for everybody's
sins? And if He did pay the penalty for everyone's sins then the suffering
for sin was already accomplished. How in the world could someone then have
to suffer eternally for their sin?...If sinners are sent to hell to pay
forever for their sins, their sins could not have been paid for by Christ
on the cross (Tape GC 47-38).

The actual atonement was made only for those who would
believe. Only their sins were expiated, otherwise nobody could go to hell
if God had in Christ borne the punishment for their sins. There would be
no sins for them to be punished for (Tape GC 47-38).

When Christ died He actually paid the penalty for the
sins of those whom God had designed to belong to Him....The focus and
attention of the actual atonement of Christ, the actual expiation, the
actual sin-bearing was in behalf of those who would believe....The actual
payment, however, was limited to those who believed, whose names were
written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world
(Tape GC 47-38).

In a more recent tape MacArthur clearly teaches that Christ
died on the cross and took the penalty only for those who would believe. This is
a tape of a message delivered to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention
[Tape GTY 64, 1997]. In this tape John MacArthur is explaining the expression
"He hath made Him to be sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Here is MacArthur's
explanation:

God treated Him as if He had personally committed every
sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe and
punished Him for them all, though in reality He had never committed one.
That's substitution!.....God treated Jesus as if He had committed every
sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe and then
He took the penalty for all those sins and just crushed the life of Jesus
out with His wrath. (emphasis mine)

MacArthur in the above quote sets forth a limited atonement
position which says that Christ died only for the sins of the elect (those who
would believe). The unlimited position says that Christ died for the sins of all
mankind, "the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). Christ tasted death "for
every man" (Heb. 2:9).

Apparently John MacArthur's earlier teaching on the extent of
the atonement was in favor of an unlimited atonement. I listened with interest
to Tape GC 54-13 on 1 Timothy 2:5-8, a message MacArthur delivered in 1986. On
this tape he comes out very strongly for unlimited atonement. It was well done.
The same could be said for Tape GC 54-12 on 1 Timothy 2:2b-4 which was an
excellent message showing that God desires all men (without exception) to be
saved. But seven years later (Tape GC 56-19, 1993) and nine years later (Tape GC
47-36, 1995) MacArthur clearly sets forth a limited atonement position.
Apparently MacArthur has changed his position on this issue, thus explaining why
there is no evidence of limited atonement teachings in MacArthur's older
commentaries.

MacArthur's Denial That
Christ Died for All Mankind in His Published Books

In 2006 John MacArthurís New Testament Commentary on John
1-11 was published. On page 259 he makes this statement which is in harmony with
his limited atonement position:

Redemption is the work of God. Christ died to
accomplish it, not merely to make it possible and then finally
accomplished when the sinner believes. The Bible does not teach that Jesus
died for everyone potentially, but no one actually. On the contrary,
Christ procured salvation for all whom God would call and justify; He
actually paid the penalty in full for all who would ever believe. Sinners
do not limit the atonement by their lack of faith; God does by His
sovereign design.

In this quotation, MacArthur is teaching that the atonement
is limited by Godís sovereign choice and that Christ actually died only for the
elect. The Bible teaches that Christ actually tasted death for every man (Heb.
2:9), even though we know that the actual work which Christ accomplished on the
cross for all of Adamís fallen race does not benefit any individual sinner until
he believes.

MacArthur has also promoted a limited atonement in a gospel
tract which he has authored. It is entitled The Promise of Heaven
and is published by Good News Publishers (catalog number 7H07). In the
third column of the tract, MacArthur writes, "When God forgives, He cannot
merely overlook sin. Full payment (atonement) must be made for our sin.
Christ's death made full atonement for those who trust Him. If
we believe in Him, His dying counts in our stead, paying for our sins in
full [emphasis ours]."

In The MacArthur New Testament Commentaryó1-3 John,
MacArthur made it very clear, in his comments under 1 John 2:2, that he
rejects unlimited atonement in favor of the limited atonement position:

Christ's death actually satisfies fully and eternally the
demands of God's wrath for those who believe. Though the Savior's death
intrinsically had infinite value, it was designed to actually (not potentially)
secure the satisfaction for divine justice only on behalf of those who would
believe....Christ's work on the cross atoned for all those who would be
sovereignly drawn by God to repent and believe....However, His death did not
atone for or satisfy divine justice regarding the unrepentant, unbelieving
millions who will appear before the Judge at the great white throne, from where
they will be sentenced to eternal punishment in the lake of fire (pp. 49-50).

MacArthur's Denial that
Christ Died for All Mankind in his Study Bible

In the fall of 1997 MacArthur published The MacArthur
Study Bible in which he made clear his position on the extent of the
atonement:

THE MACARTHUR STUDY BIBLE

"Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who
would repent and believe...Most of the world will be eternally condemned
to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by
Christ...His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins
of all whom God brings to faith...the actual satisfaction and atonement
was made only for those who believe" [see note under 1 John 2:2].

In his note under Hebrews 2:9ó"taste death for
everyone. Everyone who believes, that is."
George Zeller's comment on MacArthurís note:

The Bible says He
tasted death for every man. The Amplified Bible translates it, "for every
individual person" and see the excellent note by Dean Alford under this
passage. The Bible teaches that He died for every man or for everyone (NASB,
NIV) but MacArthur says that this means He died for "everyone who
believes." But the text of Hebrews 2:9 does not say this.]

"God the Father...had Him (Jesus) die as a Substitute
to pay the penalty for the sins of those who believe in Him...On the cross
He was treated as if He were guilty of all the sins ever committed by all
who would ever believe" [see note under 2 Cor. 5:21].

In his note on Galatians 3:13 MacArthur teaches that
Christ bore "God's wrath for believers' sins on the cross."

"Christ suffered...as the Christian's substitute. To
bear sins was to be punished for them. Christ bore the punishment and the
penalty for believers...This great doctrine of the substitutionary
atonement is the heart of the gospel. Actual atonement, sufficient for the
sins of the whole world, was made for all who would ever believe, namely
the elect" [see note under 1 Peter 2:24].

"Not all will be ransomed, but only the many who
believe by the work of the Holy Spirit and for whom the actual atonement
was made. Christ became the object of God's just wrath in the believer's
place--He died his death and bore his sin....the substitutionary aspect of
His death is applied to the elect alone" [see note under 1 Timothy 2:6].

"God treated Him (Christ) as if He had committed every
sin ever committed by every person who would ever believe" [see note under
Isaiah 53:6].

In his note on 1 Timothy 4:10 MacArthur explains how
Christ's death benefits the "non-elect" only in a temporal sense, but that
Christ died as a Substitute only for believers.

MacArthur's Denial That
Christ Died For All Mankind in Other Published Writings

In 1998 John MacArthur published a book entitled, The
Freedom and Power of Forgiveness [published by Crossway Books, 1998]. In
this book MacArthur teaches that Christ bore the penalty for sin for only those
who will believe (emphasis mine):

"God treated Christ like a sinner and punished Him for all
the sins of all who would believe" (p. 20).

"Christ ransomed His people by paying on their
behalf the penalty for their sin that was demanded by divine righteousness"
(p.21).

"All the guilt of all the sins of all who would ever be
saved was imputed to Jesus Christóreckoned to His account as if He were
guilty of all of it" (p.26).

So instead of teaching that the sins of the entire human race
were imputed to Jesus Christ when He died on the cross, MacArthur teaches that
it was only the sins "of all who would ever be saved" (the elect) that were
imputed to Him. This is clearly a limited atonement position which is
contradictory to the position which says that Christ died and paid the penalty
for the sins of all mankind, the sins of the whole world.

In 1996 MacArthur wrote a book The Glory of Heaven
which was later adapted into a gospel tract which was published by Good News
Publishers of Wheaton, IL. In the tract MacArthur explains the gospel as
follows: "When God forgives, He cannot merely overlook sin. Full payment
(atonement) must be made for our sin. Christís death made full atonement for
those who trust Him. If we believe Him, His dying counts in our stead, paying
for our sins in full." In discussing the death of Christ and the full payment
made for sins, MacArthur is very careful to limit this to only those who trust
Him and believe in Him. For others, according to MacArthur, no payment was made.

In 2003 MacArthurís major commentary on 2 Corinthians
was published. In it he continues to deny that Christ died for all mankind:

Christ did not die for all men without exception, but
for all men without distinction....Those passages [passages such as Heb.
2:9; 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 2:6] cannot mean that Christ actually paid the
penalty for everyoneís sins, because the Bible teaches that most people
will suffer eternal punishment in hell, and few will be saved. If Christ
paid the penalty for everyoneís sins, how could God sentence people to
hell for sins that Christ bore the punishment for? (page 202).

To say that Christ died for all men without distinction but
He did not die for all men without exception is typical of how limited atonement
men use semantics. They want you to think they believe that Christ died for all
men even though they actually deny this. When they say that He died for all
men without distinction they merely mean that He died for all classes of
men: rich, poor, black, white, Jew, Gentile, male, female, etc. But when you pin
them down they will admit that they only mean that He died for the ELECT who are
to be found in these different classes, and that the vast majority of mankind
(who are rich, poor, black, white, Jew, Gentile, male, female, etc.) He did not
die for at all! No provision was made for them at all!

Also, in the above quote MacArthur confuses redemption
accomplished with redemption applied. He thinks that if Christ died for a
person, then that person must be saved. MacArthur favorably quoted Pink [Tape GC
80-123] as saying, "Not one for whom He died can possibly miss heaven" (implying
that people will miss heaven because He didnít die for them). But even though
Christís work of redemption was accomplished for all, it is not applied to
anyone until they personally appropriate it by faith. It was accomplished for
them and it was provided for them, but it does not actually become theirs until
they receive it by faith. "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your
sins" (John 8:24; compare Acts 10:43). He paid sinís penalty for all, but the
benefits of that cross-work are not put to a personís account until they
believe. If a person misses heaven it is not because no provision was made and
it is not because the Saviour did not die for that person. It is because they
have rejected Godís only provision found in the Person and work of His Son!

John MacArthurís Clear and Forceful Denial That Christ Died
For All

John MacArthurís New Testament Commentary (on) 2 Peter &
Jude was published in 2005. On pages 73-74 we find a very strong and clear
denial of unlimited atonement and a defense of limited atonement. On these pages
MacArthur denies and affirms the following:

2) He strongly denies that "Christ died to pay in full the penalty for
everyoneís sins" (p. 73).

3) He affirms that Christ only died for "all who would
believe because they were chosen, called, justified, and granted
repentance and faith by the Father" (p. 74).

4) He affirms that "the atonement is limited to those
who believe, who are the elect of God" (p. 74).

5) He denies unlimited atonement and says, "One should
forget the idea of an unlimited atonement" (p.74).

6) He affirms that "God limits the atonement to the
elect" (p.74)

7) He affirms that "God provided the sacrifice in His
Son" only "for the sins of all who would ever believe, the ones chosen by
Him for salvation" (p. 74).

The glorious gospel of our blessed God involves the good
news, the glad tidings which are "to all people" (Luke 2:10). What a tragic
affront to the gospel to have one of Americaís most outstanding Bible teachers
attacking the fact that God loves everyone (John 3:16), wants everyone saved
(see 1 Tim. 2:4), and so died for everyone (Heb. 2:9). Lest I be accused
of taking these comments of MacArthur out of context, Iím going to reproduce
these two pages in their entirety:

Many take this statement the Master who bought them [2 Peter 2:1]
to mean that Christ actually has purchased redemption in full for all
people, even for false teachers. It is commonly thought that Christ died
to pay in full the penalty for everyone*s
sins, whether they ever believe or not. The popular notion is that God
loves everyone, wants everyone saved, so Christ died for everyone.

This means His death was a potential sacrifice or
atonement that becomes an actual atonement when a sinner repents and
believes the gospel. Evangelism, according to this view, is convincing
sinners to receive what has already been done for them. All can believe
and be saved if they will, since no one is excluded in the atonement.

This viewpoint, if taken to its logical conclusion, has
hell full of people whose salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross.
Therefore the lake of fire is filled with those damned people whose sin
Christ fully atoned for by bearing their punishment under God*s
wrath.

Heaven will be populated by people who had the same
atonement provided for them, but they are there because they received it.
Christ, in this view, died on the cross for the damned in hell the same as
He did for the redeemed in heaven. The only difference between the
redeemed*s
fate and that of the damned is the sinner*s
choice.

This perspective says that the Lord Jesus Christ died
to make salvation possible, not actual. He did not absolutely purchase
salvation for anyone. He only removed a barrier for everyone, which merely
makes salvation potential. The sinner ultimately determines the nature of
the atonement and its application by what he does. According to this
perspective, when Jesus cried, "It is finished," it really should be
rendered, "It is stated."

Of course, the preceding interpretational difficulties
and fallacies arising from this view stem from the misunderstanding of two
very important biblical teachings: the doctrine of absolute inability
(often called total depravity) and the doctrine of the atonement itself.

Rightly understood, the doctrine of absolute inability
says that all people are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), alienated
from the life of God (Rom. 1:21-22), doing only evil from terminally
deceitful hearts (cf. Jer. 17:9), incapable of understanding the things of
God (1 Cor. 2:14), blinded by love of sin, further blinded by Satan (2
Cor. 4:4), desiring only the will of their father the devil, unable to
seek God, and unwilling to repent (cf. Rom. 3:10-23). So how is the sinner
going to make the right choice to activate the atonement on his behalf?

Clearly, salvation is solely from God (cf. Ps. 3:8;
Jonah 2:9}óHe must give light, life, sight, understanding, repentance, and
faith (John 1:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation comes to the
sinner from God, by His will and power. Since that is true, and based on
the doctrine of sovereign election (1 Peter 1:1-3; 2 Peter 1:3; cf. Rom.
8:26-30; 9:14-22; Eph. 1:3-6),God determined the extent of the atonement.

For whom did Christ die? He died for all who would
believe because they were chosen, called, justified, and granted
repentance and faith by the Father. The atonement is limited to those who
believe, who are the elect of God. Any believer who does not believe in
universal salvation knows Christ*s
atonement is limited (cf. Matt. 7:13; 8:12; 10:28; 22:13; 25:46; Mark
9:43,49; John 3:17-18; 8:24; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). Anyone who rejects the
notion that the whole human race will be saved believes necessarily in a
limited atonementóeither limited by the sinner who is sovereign, or by God
who is sovereign.

One should forget the idea of an unlimited atonement.
If he asserts that sinners have the power to limit its application, then
the atonement by its nature is limited in actual power and effectiveness.
With that understanding, it is less than a real atonement and is, in fact,
merely potential and restricted by the volitions of fallen human beings.
But in truth, only God can set the atonement*s
limits, which extend to every believing sinner without distinction.

Adherents to the unlimited view must affirm that Christ
actually atoned for no one in particular but potentially for everyone
without exception. Whatever He did on the cross was not a full and
complete payment for sin, because sinners for whom He died are still
damned. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for by Christósin paid
for, yet punished forever.

Of course, such thinking is completely unacceptable.
God limits the atonement to the elect, for whom it was not a potential but
an actual and real satisfaction for sin. God provided the sacrifice in His
Son, which actually paid for the sins of all who would ever believe, the
ones chosen by Him for salvation (cf. Matt. 1:21; John 10:11,27-28; Eph.
5:25-26).

In the above paragraphs, MacArthur has again failed to make the proper distinction
between redemption accomplished and redemption applied.
Redemption is accomplished for all, as numerous Scripture passages declare (1
Tim. 2:6; Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2; etc.), but redemption is applied only
to those who believe. Even MacArthur would acknowledge that Christ died to pay
the penalty for the sins of Saul of Tarsus, and yet MacArthur would also agree
that Christís death for Saul did not secure his salvation until he believed in
Christ. At the time Saul was persecuting Christians he was not a saved man, even
though Christ had already died for him. The death of Christ, in itself, does not
automatically save anyone. It was not until Saulís conversion that the benefits
of the cross-work of Christ were put to his account. Redemption was accomplished
by Christ at the cross for all mankind; redemption is applied by the Holy Spirit
to the heart of the believing sinner the moment he believes. People are not lost
because Christ did not die for them; they are lost because they reject the
Christ who died for them. People are not lost because the water of life is not
available to them; they are lost because they refuse to drink!

Also in the above paragraphs, MacArthur teaches that if
Christ bore the iniquity of everyone then universal salvation would be the
result. Boettner makes a similar false statement: "Universal redemption means
universal salvation." That is, "If Christ died for everyone, then everyone will
be saved." Think about the logic of such statements. It would be like saying,
"If medicine is available for everyone, then everyone must be healed." This is
obviously false. The medicine, though available, will not do any good unless it
is taken. A Biblical illustration of this is found in John 3, where the death of
Christ is likened to the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness. God
provided a remedy for each and every Israelite without exception. Looking at the
brazen (bronze) serpent would have healed anyone and everyone from the deadly
bite of the fiery serpents. Only those who obeyed by looking were healed! The
remedy was provided for all; only those who looked benefited from Godís remedy
and were healed.

MacArthur believes that "not one for whom Christ died can
possibly miss heaven" (Tape GC 80-123). However, no one will ever stand before
God and say, "I will miss heaven because the Saviour did not die for me." On the
contrary, every mouth will be stopped because Godís great salvation was both
provided at the cross and offered to every sinner. It almost seems blasphemous
to blame the doom of sinners on the supposed fact that Christ did not die for
them.

If any one still doubts whether MacArthur holds to a
limited atonement, consider the following quote by MacArthur in which he
gave a highly favorable review of the book, The Five Points of
Calvinism--Defined, Defended and Documented by David N. Steele, Curtis
C. Thomas and S. Lance Quinn:

I am thankful for this timely
revision of a wonderful classic that has already been an immense blessing
to countless thousands. Notwithstanding its success over the years, the
only question that ultimately matters about the five points of Calvinism"
is whether these doctrines are biblical. This book has demonstrated
(conclusively, in my judgment) that the "five points" are nothing more or
less than what the Bible teaches. The doctrines of grace and divine
sovereignty are the very lifeblood of the full and free salvation promised
in the gospel. [This quote is found on page 139 of the
above mentioned book. MacArthur wrote the "Afterword" for the book.]

John MacArthurís Position in Contrast with the IFCA Position

In view of John MacArthur's position on the extent of the
atonement as documented is this paper, I am puzzled by how Dr. MacArthur in good
conscience could have signed the IFCA doctrinal statement which says: "We
believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross FOR ALL MANKIND as a
representative, vicarious, SUBSTITUTIONARY sacrifice." The original IFCA
statement did not carry this wording. This part of the IFCA doctrinal statement
was changed in 1985 because the men of the IFCA wanted to be very clear on the
issue of the extent of the atonement. They rejected the idea that Christ died
and paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect. They rejected the doctrine
of "limited atonement" as it is generally understood. That this is what was
intended by the doctrinal statement is further seen by the fact that the
official IFCA book list catalog recommends the following two books: 1) The
Death Christ Died by Robert Lightner; 2) Did Christ Die Only for the
Elect? by Charles Smith. Both of these books argue forcefully against
LIMITED ATONEMENT, showing that the Scriptures teach that Christ paid the death
penalty as a Substitute for all mankind, including those who are not the elect
of God. How then could John MacArthur have signed the IFCA Doctrinal Statement
in light of the fact that he clearly denies that Christ died as a Substitute for
the whole world?

I received a letter from John MacArthur's co-worker, Phil
Johnson (Executive Director, Grace To You) in which he answered some of
my questions and further explained John MacArthur's position on the extent of
the atonement. This letter is dated 10/29/96 and a copy of the entire letter is
attached at the end of this paper. The key paragraph reads as follows:

You raise the question of how
John MacArthur can sign the IFCA doctrinal statement, which says, "We
believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind as a
representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice." But nothing in that
statement is incompatible with John MacArthur's view. Christ died for all
mankind without distinction. That does not mean He died for each
individual without exception. In other words, Christ is the Savior of
all mankind, not of the Jews only. Nonetheless, the
substitutionary, efficacious aspects of His atoning work apply only to
believers.

The IFCA statement says that Christ died as a Substitute for
all mankind. Phil Johnson, writing on behalf of John MacArthur, says that He did
not die for each individual without exception. There is a clear contradiction
here. The dictionary defines "mankind" as "the human race, the totality of
human beings." When you add the qualifying adjective "ALL" ("all mankind")
then it clearly refers to every individual of the human race without exception.

Phil Johnson has re-stated the IFCA doctrinal statement by
saying, "Christ died for all mankind without distinction." He added the words
"without distinction." They are not found in the IFCA doctrinal statement.
Limited atonement men will commonly say, "Christ died for all men without
distinction but He did not die for all men without exception." This is a clever
way of saying that He died for all men without really meaning that He died for
all men. What they really mean is the Christ died for all kinds of men--Jews and
Gentiles, rich and poor, male and female, bond and free, etc. But they insist
that He only died for the elect Jews and Gentiles, the elect rich and poor, etc.
However, Hebrews 2:9 teaches that He died for all men without exception ("for
every individual person"--Amplified translation and see Dean Alford's comments
on this verse).

In his letter Phil Johnson also made this comment: "John
MacArthur's view on these matters are nearly identical to the position outlined
by R.B.Kuiper in his book, For Whom Did Christ Die? That book goes into
greater detail than MacArthur has in any of his messages, so it might be of help
if you're seeking to understand the position better." R.B. Kuiper is a
non-dispensational, covenant theologian and a five point Calvinist.
Neither Kuiper's limited atonement position nor MacArthur's limited atonement
position is in harmony with the IFCA doctrinal statement which declares that
Christ died on the cross for all mankind.

What Does the IFCA Statement Really Mean?

Let us now analyze the IFCA doctrinal statement and see what
it really says:

"Christ died on the cross for all
mankind..."

MacArthur teaches that He did not die for all mankind, but
that He died only for the elect. On Tape GC 80-123 MacArthur favorably quotes
A.W.Pink (a limited redemptionist, a five point Calvinist) who said, "Not one
for whom He died can possibly miss heaven." Also MacArthurís personal assistant,
Dave Swavely, wrote to me on 3/20/96 to explain MacArthurís position on the
atonement and he also cited this same quote from Pink to support and represent
MacArthurís position. Itís obvious that most of mankind will miss heaven (Matt.
7:13-14) and according to MacArthur and Pink this means that Christ did not die
for most of mankind. The IFCA doctrinal statement says that He died for all
mankind, which means that He even died for the majority of mankind that are
going to miss heaven.

1

Note: ďNot one for who whom
Christ died can miss heaven.Ē If this is really true, as Pink and MacArthur
teach, then the practical ramifications are very sobering. For example, I
have witnessed to people who, sad to say, have missed heaven. They have
since died and as far as I know they rejected Christ and entered eternity
without Christ. But when they were alive I announced to them the good news
that Christ died for their sins (1 Cor. 15:1-3). If what MacArthur is saying
is true, then I lied to them! These people missed heaven and this means,
according to Pink/MacArthur, Christ did not really die for them. Therefore,
my witnessing to them was a lie and I misrepresented the gospel to them,
according to the teaching of Pink/MacArthur.

In the letter I received from Phil Johnson (Executive
Director, Grace to You) dated 10/29/96 he wrote to me the following (in
explaining John MacArthurís position on the atonement): "Christ died for all
mankind without distinction. That does not mean He died for each individual
without exception." The IFCA statement says that Christ died for all mankind,
and this means He died for each individual without exception. Johnson, in
explaining MacArthurís position, says that Christ did not die for each
individual without exception. There is an obvious conflict in these two
positions.

Hebrews 2:9 agrees with the IFCA statement: "He tasted death
for every man" (or "for every individual person"Ėsee Amplified Bible and see
Dean Alfordís comments on this verse). If a person says that Christ did not die
for each individual without exception, does not this violate the IFCA statement?
It is interesting what MacArthur says about Hebrews 2:9. In the MacArthur
Study Bible note under Hebrews 2:9 it says, "taste death for every man.
Everyone who believes, that is." Thus the Bible says that Christ tasted death
for every man or for everyone, but MacArthur teaches that He tasted death for
"everyone who believes." The IFCA doctrinal statement says that He died as a
Substitute "for all mankind" but MacArthur teaches that He died only for that
part of mankind that believes. There is a clear conflict between these two
positions. They are not one and the same.

"Christ died on the cross for all
mankind as a representative...sacrifice."

According to the Scriptures, there are only two men who acted
as representatives of the entire human race, Adam and Christ (Romans 5). Adam,
by his act of disobedience, acted on behalf of the entire human race. Likewise,
Christ, by His act of obedience (Phil. 2:8), acted on behalf of the entire human
race, or as the IFCA statement says, "for all mankind." Those holding to a
limited atonement say that when Christ died on the cross He did not act on
behalf of the entire human race, but He acted only on the behalf of the elect.
As we shall see, this is what MacArthur teaches. So the key question is this:
Did Christ bear the sins of the entire race or did He only bear the sins of the
elect? In MacArthurís book The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness (1998) he
says, "All the guilt of all the sins of all who would ever be saved was imputed
to Jesus Christóreckoned to His account as if He were guilty of all of it"
(p.26). Here MacArthur teaches that the sins of all who would ever be saved were
imputed to Christ when He died on the cross, not the sins of the entire human
race. Thus Christ, according to MacArthur, acted as a Representative not for
Adamís entire race, but only for the elect.

"Christ died on the cross for all
mankind as a ...vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice."

"Vicarious" means "serving instead of someone else, performed
or suffered by one person as a substitute for another, substitutionary" and thus
the terms vicarious and substitutionary are two ways of saying the same thing.
The IFCA wanted to make it crystal clear that Christís substitutionary death
(when He bore the wrath of God in the sinnerís place) was for all mankind. That
is, He bore the wrath of God and paid sinís penalty for all mankind. This is
exactly the point which MacArthur repeatedly denies in his published writings
and public tapes.

MacArthur makes it clear that there is a sense in which
Christ died for all mankind, but it is not in the substitutionary sense.
He teaches that the death of Christ is for all men but the non-elect benefit
from Christís death only in a temporal sense (they are not destroyed instantly,
they benefit from the sun and the rain, they benefit from "common grace" etc.).
This is explained by MacArthur in his Study Bible note under 1 Timothy 4:10.
However MacArthur makes it clear that Christ died as a Substitute only for the
elect. "He did not pay the penalty of sin for those who reject Him...All of
Godís creatures, including men and women who reject God, reap many benefits from
the death of Christ, not the least of which is life itself...So John (MacArthur)
believes that even the non-elect are affected positively as a result of the
atonement of Christ...The atonement is limited in the sense that Christ acted
as a Substitute only for those who believe in Him" (Swavelyís letter,
3/20/96).

2

MacArthur's Limited Atonement Position

I would now like to establish, beyond any doubt, that
MacArthur teaches a limited atonement, that Christ died as a Substitute and paid
sinís penalty only for the elect and not for all mankind. The objective reader
should be able to understand the plain sense of the following statements:

"He (Christ) did not pay the penalty of sin for those who
reject Him" (Swavely explaining MacArthurís position in his 3/20/96 letter).

"Christ acted as a Substitute only for those who believe in
Him" (Swavely explaining MacArthurís position in his 3/20/96 letter).

"There is an unlimited aspect of Christís work on the cross,
but when you talk of "substitution" you now are talking about the limited aspect
of it" (MacArthur, Tape GC 47-36).

"He is the Substitute only for those who believe, otherwise
you have a major problem because you have Christ dying as a Substitute for the
whole world. That means He was bearing the sins of the whole world in a
substitutionary sense. If in fact He was carrying Himself to the cross as a
Substitute for the sins of every person who ever lived, He would therefore have
done away with the wrath of God and procured for them eternal life and we would
all be universalists" (MacArthur, Tape GC 47-36).

"In the substitutionary sense He bore only the sins of those
who ultimately would put their faith in Him" (MacArthur, Tape GC 47-46).

"The actual atonement was made only for those who would
believe" (Tape GC 47-38).

"When Christ died He actually paid the penalty for the sins
of those whom God had designed to belong to Him...The actual payment was limited
to those who believed, whose names were written in the Lambís book of life
before the foundation of the world" (Tape GC 47-38).

"God treated Him as if He had personally committed every sin
ever committed by every person who would ever believe and punished Him for them
all, though in reality He had never committed one. Thatís substitution! God
treated Jesus as if He had committed every sin ever committed by every person
who would ever believe and then He took the penalty for all those sins and just
crushed the life of Jesus out with His wrath" (Tape GTY 64, 1997).

"Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would
repent and believe" (Study Bible under 1 John 2:2).

"God the Father...had Him (Jesus) die as a Substitute to pay
the penalty for the sins of those who believe in Him" (Study Bible under 2 Cor.
5:21).

In his Study Bible note on Galatians 3:13 MacArthur teaches
that Christ bore "Godís wrath for believersí sins on the cross."

"The substitutionary aspect of His death is applied to the
elect alone" (Study Bible under 1 Timothy 2:6).

In his Study Bible note on 1 Timothy 4:10 MacArthur explains
how Christís death benefits the "non-elect" only in a temporal sense, but that
Christ died as a Substitute only for believers."

"Christ died for all mankind without distinction. That
does not mean he died for each individual without exception...The substitutionary, efficacious aspects of His atoning work apply only to
believers" (Phil Johnson, on MacArthurís staff, in a letter 10/29/96 in which he
explained MacArthurís position).

I wanted to give all of this documentation to show that
MacArthur consistently teaches a limited atonement position in which he says
that Christ died as a Substitute and paid sinís penalty only for believers (for
the elect). This is in sharp contrast to the IFCA position which says that His
vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice was "for all mankind."

MacArthur's Position and the
IFCA Doctrinal Statement Are Contradictory

How can Christís substitutionary death be "for all mankind"
(as the IFCA statement says) if He is a Substitute only for those who believe?
These statements are obviously contradictory. If He died as a Substitute only
for the elect, then this means that He did not die as a Substitute for all
mankind (because all mankind would include a large host of people who are not
elect). If He died as a Substitute for all mankind, then He did not die as a
Substitute only for the elect. Itís true that He died as a Substitute for
the elect, but not only for the elect (which is the point that MacArthur
constantly maintains in the quotes given earlier).

If John MacArthurís position (that Christís substitutionary
death is limited only to the elect) is in harmony with the IFCA statement, then
what would a person have to believe about the substitutionary death of Christ to
be out of harmony with the IFCA statement? What would a person need to teach in
order for the IFCA leadership to say, "Weíre sorry, but your position on the
atonement of Christ is not in harmony with the IFCA position"?

Dr. Robert Lightner and John
MacArthur

There are others who have stated that MacArthurís limited
atonement position is out of harmony with the unlimited atonement position (such
as that set forth in the IFCA doctrinal statement). Dr. Robert Lightner wrote a
book, "The Death Christ Died," which for many years was listed on the IFCA
literature list, along with Dr. Charles Smithís booklet. Both of these books
presented the unlimited atonement position and they represented the position of
the IFCA (or else why would the IFCA office carry them and promote them?).
Recently Dr. Lightner has revised his book and it has been re-published by
Kregel. In the back there is a lengthy appendix in which he deals with John
MacArthurís position, especially as set forth in his Study Bible, and shows that
MacArthurís position is not in harmony with the unlimited atonement position.
Lightner makes it clear that MacArthurís position is contrary to the position
which he sets forth in his book. If Lightner is convinced that MacArthurís
position is contrary to his book, and if Lightnerís book once represented the
IFCA position, then doesnít this indicate that MacArthurís position is contrary
to the IFCA position?

What Action did the IFCA Take On This Matter?

When John MacArthurís Study Bible was published many
men in the IFCA were concerned because these notes clearly set forth a limited
atonement position (as we have already documented). The IFCA leadership was made
aware of this problem. Dr. Richard Gregory, the National Executive Director of
the IFCA, visited John MacArthur and talked to him personally about these
matters, seeking to determine MacArthurís position on the extent of the
atonement. Apparently MacArthur assured Richard Gregory that he believed that
Christís death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect and this
satisfied Dr. Gregory. In November 1997 the National Executive Committee of the
IFCA met and this issue was on the agenda. Dr. Gregory gave his report of his
meeting with John MacArthur and based on this the Committee apparently made the
decision that John MacArthurís position on the extent of the atonement was not
out of harmony with the IFCA doctrinal statement.

As I have already argued, I strongly disagree with this
conclusion. It is sad that the IFCA leaders have allowed for "freedom of
interpretation" when it comes to the IFCA doctrinal statement so that a man who
believes that Christ paid sinís penalty for all mankind and a man who denies
this and teaches that He only paid sinís penalty for the elect can both sign the doctrinal statement!! My
understanding is that the IFCA doctrinal statement (as amended in 1984, with the
words "for all mankind" added) was intended to exclude those holding a limited
atonement position, but apparently this is not the understanding of the current
IFCA leadership.

Two Former IFCA Executive
Directors Clarify What the Real Issues Are

On January 26, 1999 I received an e-mail communication from
Harold Freeman who was the IFCA National Executive Director at the time the IFCA
doctrinal statement was amended and the words "for all mankind" were added. The
following is his recollection of why this amendment was made:

The amendment to which George
Zeller refers in his e-mail to you did pass at the convention in 1984. In
the discussion on the floor of the convention one delegate asked for the
intended purpose of the proposed amendment. As Executive Director I
responded that it was meant to convey the IFCA stand for unlimited
atonement. In the published minutes of the 1985 convention at Winona Lake
Indiana it was reported to have passed the necessary ratification by the
Regionals by a vote of 25 yes and zero no votes, thus having been approved
for adoption. It is interesting that the report in the published minutes
refers to it as (Unlimited Atonement). The wording of the amendment itself
is prima facie evidence.

Bryan Jones, who sent me this e-mail, was also a former
National Executive Director of the IFCA, and he stated to me that he believes
that Harold Freemanís comments are accurate as well as he can remember. Thus
based on the recollection of two former Executive Directors, including the man
who presided over the IFCA at the time the amendment passed, it was the stated
intention of this amendment to set forth the unlimited atonement position in
contrast to the limited atonement position.

The IFCA Doctrinal Statement was amended in 1984 with respect
to the extent of the atonement. Those IFCA leaders made it clear that the
intended purpose of the amendment was to take a stand for unlimited atonement
and to not allow into membership men who hold to a limited atonement persuasion.
Why is it that the current IFCA leadership allows limited atonement men to be
members of the IFCA in direct conflict with the statement of faith? If the
IFCA leadership now desires to have limited atonement men in the IFCA, then
would not honesty and doctrinal integrity require them to amend the doctrinal
statement once again to allow for limited atonement?

The IFCA Doctrinal Statement has not been changed. This
raises the another question as to how limited atonement men can honestly sign a
doctrinal statement which declares that Jesus Christ died as a Substitute "for
all mankind." Do they sign it with their fingers crossed behind their
backs?

I have a doctrinal question. Does John MacArthur believe that the Lord
Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind as a representative,
vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Sincerely in Christ,
Blake Lewis

Please notice that the question which was asked was taken
directly from the IFCA Doctrinal Statement which says, "We believe that the Lord
Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind as a representative, vicarious,
substitutionary sacrifice." The response to this letter is as follows:

01/11/2007

Dear Mr. Lewis,

Thank you for your recent letter of
inquiry with regards to Dr. MacArthur's position on the atonement of
Christ. Due to Dr. MacArthur's current schedule, I've been asked by
his office to respond to you on his behalf.

There are a few excellent resources that
elaborate on Dr. MacArthur's position on the atonement of Christ and as to
whether Christ died on the cross for all mankind as a representative,
vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice.

The first is the MacArthur Study Bible
note on 2 Cor. 5:21 which explains Dr. MacArthur's position. The second is
the Grace to You website at www.gty.org.
On this website there is a search option by topic on the left side of the
screen. When you type in atonement, you will be given access to the
transcripts of Dr. MacArthur's sermons on this topic.

Thank you again for your letter. I
trust these resources will encourage and edify you in Christ.

For His glory,

Mark Chin, Pastoral Care Dept.,
Grace Community Church

The MacArthur Study Bible note on 2 Cor. 5:21 says
"actual atonement was made only for those who believe." The MacArthur
Bible Commentary note on 2 Cor. 5:21 says, "God the Father...treated Christ
as if He were a sinner though He was not, and had Him die as a substitute to pay
the penalty for the sins of those who believe in Him....He was treated as
if He were guilty of all the sins ever committed by all who would ever
believe" (emphasis mine).

I then went to the website that Mark Chin mentioned in his
letter to Blake Lewis. I did a search, typing in the word "atonement."
A number of sermons came up. The following are quotes from the first three
sermons that are listed:

Quotes from John
MacArthur's Sermons on the Topic of the Atonement

From the
sermon, "The Doctrine of Actual Atonement, Part 1" (no date is
given)

If I ask the average
Christian for whom did Christ die? The traditional answer
would be, "Everybody...everybody, Christ died for the whole world."
Most people in the church believe that on the cross Jesus paid the
debt of sin for everyone because He loves everyone and He wants
everyone to be saved. That's pretty much the common evangelical
view. Jesus died for everybody. He paid the price for the sins of
everybody. [Note: MacArthur makes it clear
in this sermon that he does not agree with this
traditional/evangelical view.]

Jesus Christ died and paid
in full the penalty for the sins of all who would ever believe so
that His atonement is an actual atonement and not a potential one.

The atonement is limited.
And by atonement I mean the sacrifice of Christ by which He paid the
penalty for sin. The atonement is limited.

So we do believe in a
limited atonement. It is limited to those who believe.

God does limit the
atonement. But listen carefully to me. He limits the
atonement as to its extent.

I don't have any problem at
all saying the atonement is limited...it's limited to those who
believe.

I believe in a limited
atonement as to its extent. It is limited to those who believe who
are those who are called, who are those who are chosen. [Note: How could MacArthur say it any clearer?
He believes that Christ died only for the elect.]

God provided a sacrifice in
His Son, a true payment in full for the sins of all who would ever
believe.

From the sermon, "The Doctrine of Actual Atonement, Part 2" (no date
is given)

Sinners do not limit the
atonement, God does. Jesus did actually take the penalty in full for
all who would ever believe.

From the
Sermon, "The Sacrifice That Satisfied--1 John 2:2" (no date is
given)

Does [1 John 2:2] mean that
Jesus has literally propitiated God for the whole world? Does
the whole world mean the whole world?...[1 John 2:2] is not telling
us that the atonement was literally made for everyone.

[Now MacArthur explains what he thinks 1 John 2:2 is really
teaching]: Jesus on the cross offered an atonement
for those in Israel who would repent and believe and those
throughout the world who would repent and believe. Jesus didn't pay
for the sins of Judas. Jesus didn't pay for the sins of Herod. Jesus
didn't pay for the sins of Pilate. Jesus didn't pay for the
sins of Adolph Hitler. Jesus didn't pay for the sins of all
that mass of humanity that show up at the Great White Throne and are
cast into the Lake of Fire forever...But He did pay for the sins of
all who will believe in Israel and the world.

In light of the above quotations, does John MacArthur believe
that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind as a
representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice as the IFCA Doctrinal
Statement declares? The answer is an unequivocal NO! MacArthur's
limited atonement doctrine is completely out of harmony with the IFCA Doctrinal
Statement. MacArthur teaches that Christ died and paid sin's penalty only
for those who will believe, that is, only for the elect.

The IFCA Devotes An Issue of
Their "Voice" Journal (July/August 2008) to the Matter of the Extent of the
Atonement

I commend the IFCA for including an excellent article by Charles
Smith in which he argues strongly and Biblically against the limited atonement
position. Dr. Smith was my professor at Grace Seminary and he
unquestionably held to an unlimited atonement position. This article by Dr.
Smith reflects a position on the extent of the atonement which is contrary to
the limited position of Dr. John MacArthur.

Another article was authored by Joseph Smith and entitled,
"Evangelism and the Atonement." I commend Joseph Smith for his
exhortation to evangelize the lost, but I did not find his article very helpful
as far as contributing to the atonement controversy. His main point seemed
to be, "Regardless of your position on the extent of the atonement, as long as
you are passionate about evangelism, that is the one thing that matters."
I agree that we need to be passionate about evangelism, but whether or not
Christ died as a Substitute for all mankind is also a matter of great Biblical
importance. If we are not free to go up to any sinner and say, "Christ
died for your sins," then this would certainly have practical applications as to
how we evangelize the lost. Do we have a gospel for all men or do we have
good news only for the elect?

The key article in the Journal, which was
also the lead article, was written by Les Lofquist (the IFCA Executive Director) and
entitled, "Toward Understanding the Atonement." Lofquist is to be commended for quoting from a Bibliotheca
Sacra, April-June 2008 article by Gary L. Schultz Jr. which was well
reasoned from the Scriptures. Schultz's article is supportive of the
unlimited position.

Lofquist's article, "Toward Understanding the Atonement," favors the unlimited atonement
position and argues against the limited position of the strict five-point
Calvinist. However, he presents the issue in such a way as to say that the
atonement is both unlimited and limited: "The Atonement is not limited,
but its application through the work of the Holy Spirit is" (p. 11). This
"two-part answer" (p. 11) is supposed to be a "both/and view" which says that the
atonement is "universal in intention, particular in application...sufficient for
all, efficient for the elect" (p. 12). He thus argues for both a limited and
unlimited understanding of the atonement. We'll discuss this in a moment.

Where does the IFCA stand on the issue of the extent of the
atonement in the light of its clear doctrinal statement? Lofquist quotes from the 1945 IFCA doctrinal statement, and
then he quotes from the amended doctrinal statement of 1984 where the words "for
all mankind" were added. It would have helped if Lofquist had pointed out
that the 1984 amended statement was a forceful affirmation of the doctrine of
unlimited atonement, although it certainly speaks for itself. According to
Harold Freeman (now with the Lord) who served as the IFCA Executive Director in 1984 when the
statement was amended, the very reason the doctrinal statement was changed was
to clarify the universal and unlimited extent of the atonement [Freeman's exact
quote is cited earlier in this paper]. This is
evident as seen by the
wording "for all mankind" and the added Scripture references (Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet.
2:1).

Lofquist then stated that "five-point Calvinists would reject
the 1984 IFCA Doctrinal Statement, opting for their Limited Atonement view" (p.
12). And so they should. How could any honest five point Calvinist
sign with integrity a doctrinal statement which says that Christ died as a
Substitute "for all mankind"? How could John MacArthur sign such a
statement?

Lofquist then divides the IFCA into two groups: 1)
Those who hold to a "both/and" view of the Atonement (saying "it is universal
in intention, particular in application" or saying "it is sufficient for all,
efficient for the elect." 2) Those who hold to an either/or
view of the Atonement ("it must be either limited or unlimited"). (p.12).

Lofquist is saying within the IFCA are two groups:
1) Those who believe the Atonement is both limited and unlimited
("both/and" view); 2) Those who believe that the Atonement is
unlimited and not limited ("either/or" view).

This is a false dichotomy. Those who strongly teach
unlimited atonement and reject limited atonement certainly recognize that Christ's cross-work is unlimited in its
provision but limited in its application. They believe that there is a
clear difference between redemption accomplished for
all mankind and redemption applied to those who believe.

Dr. Charles Smith clearly made this distinction in his
booklet Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? Lewis
Sperry Chafer, a strong proponent of unlimited atonement, made it clear in his
Systematic Theology that the benefits of Christ's death were limited to
the elect. Dr. Robert Lightner in his defense of unlimited atonement,
The Death Christ Died, clearly made this distinction. Charles Ryrie
does the same in his Basic Theology. Other defenders of
unlimited atonement (Norman F. Douty, James Morison, Richard Baxter, etc.)
recognize this obvious distinction. I have made the same
distinction in my paper, For Whom Did Christ Die? as seen in the
following:

The careful student of Scripture must make a difference
between REDEMPTION ACCOMPLISHED (by Christ at the cross) and REDEMPTION
APPLIED (by the Holy Spirit to the heart of the believing sinner). The
benefits of the cross-work of Christ are never put to the account of the
sinner unless and until he believes.

The extreme Calvinist must also distinguish between the
cross-work of Christ that was accomplished and the benefits of that
cross-work which are applied to the heart of the believing sinner by the
Holy Spirit. Did Christ die for Saul of Tarsus who was persecuting the
church of God? Every Calvinist must say YES to this question. If
Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of Saul of Tarsus, then why was
Saul not forgiven while he was yet persecuting the church? The answer is
that he was still in unbelief and it was not until his conversion that the
benefits of the cross-work of Christ were put to his account.

All these defenders of the doctrine
of unlimited atonement recognize that Christ's cross-work is limited in its
application to those who believe. Only believers receive the forgiveness
of sins, eternal life, and a perfect righteous standing in Christ. Why
then does Lofquist make such a dichotomy as if there are unlimited atonement men
who deny that Christ's death is limited in its application? I don't know
any sound Bible teacher who believes this. [Note: If someone teaches that
the atonement is unlimited in its provision and unlimited in its application,
then this would be universalism. If Christ died for all, and if the
benefits of His death are applied to all, then this would mean that all are
saved.]

The real issue, which Lofquist
fails to clarify, is that there is a huge difference between those who believe
in unlimited atonement and those who deny it. It would have helped greatly
if Lofquist could have clearly defined the obvious difference between the two
views. Here is but one illustration of the clear-cut difference:

The
Unlimited Atonement Position

The believer in unlimited atonement can honestly speak
to any person and give him this good news: "My friend, the Lord
Jesus Christ died for your sins, and if you believe on Him and receive Him
as your Saviour, you will receive God's gift of eternal life."

The believer in unlimited atonement believes that Christ
died for the sins of Judas, Herod, Pilate and Hitler, yea, for the sins of
"all mankind."

The
Limited Atonement Position

The believer in limited atonement says, ďAs a reformed
Christian, the writer believes that counselors
must not tell any unsaved counselee that
Christ died for him, for they
cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his
elect for whom he died" (emphasis mine). [Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p.
70]

The believer in limited atonement says, "Jesus
didn't pay for the sins of Judas. Jesus didn't pay for the sins of Herod.
Jesus didn't pay for the sins of Pilate. Jesus didn't pay for the
sins of Adolph Hitler. Jesus didn't pay for the sins of all that
mass of humanity that show up at the Great White Throne and are cast into
the Lake of Fire forever...But He did pay for the sins of all who will
believe in Israel and the world" (John MacArthur, from the Sermon, "The
Sacrifice That Satisfied--1 John 2:2.")

The difference between these two positions is like the difference between day and
night. It would have helped if Lofquist could have clarified this
difference in his article. There is a huge difference between what the
IFCA doctrinal statement declares and what John MacArthur teaches. Lofquist says that a strict
five-point Calvinist would not like the IFCA doctrinal statement. Perhaps
not. Whether John MacArthur likes the IFCA statement or not, I do not
know. I'm sure that if he were writing it, he would word it much
differently. But the key question is this: Why is John MacArthur, a
strict five-point Calvinist, allowed to hold membership in the IFCA?
If MacArthur's position is diametrically opposed to the IFCA doctrinal statement
then this raises two key questions: 1) How could MacArthur sign the
doctrinal statement? 2) How could the IFCA leadership allow
him to be a member? These are both issues of doctrinal integrity and they
have not been answered.

What is the Biblical Teaching on the Extent of the Atonement?

In contrast to the teaching of limited atonement, the Bible
teaches that the death of Christ satisfied the justice of God on behalf of the
whole world (1 John 2:2 and 2 Cor. 5:19). He died as a Substitute for each and
every man, yea for all men (Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:6), even for those who reject
Christ (2 Pet. 2:1). But the individual for whom Christ died does not
personally benefit from the death of Christ until he comes to Christ in
faith. The death was for all. The provision was for all. The salvation
invitation and offer is to all. But only believers benefit (Romans 4:1-8). The
fountain of salvation pours out its life giving waters to all, but the only ones
who personally benefit are those who drink (Isaiah 55:1; Rev. 22:17). The same
is taught in John chapter 6. Christ, the bread of life, gave His flesh for the
life of the world (v.51), but only those who personally eat and drink enjoy the
benefits of His death (v.53). God gave His only begotten Son for the world, but
the only ones who benefit are the "whosoevers" who believe (John 3:16).

As far as what the Bible teaches on this issue, consider the
following:

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?

He died for ALL (1 Tim. 2:6).
He died for ALL MEN (Rom. 5:18; 1 Tim. 4:10).
He died for US ALL, for ALL OF US (Isa. 53:6).
He died for the UNGODLY (Rom. 5:6).
He died for CHRIST-DENIERS (2 Peter 2:1).
He died for SINNERS (Rom. 5:8).
He died for EVERY MAN (Heb. 2:9).
He died for MANY (Matthew 20:28).
He died for the WORLD (John 6:33,51; John 1:29 and John 3:16).
He died for the WHOLE WORLD (1 John 2:2).
He died for the WHOLE NATION of Israel (John 11:50-51).
He died for the CHURCH (Eph. 5:25).
He died for His SHEEP (John 10:11).
He died for ME (Gal. 2:20).

The Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God
involved the sin of the world (John 1:29) and that the Saviourís work of
redemption (1 Tim. 2:6; 2 Pet. 2:1), reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19), and
propitiation (1 John 2:2) was accomplished on behalf of all mankind (1 Timothy
4:10a). However, the cross-work of Christ is efficient, effectual and beneficial
only for those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10b; John 3:16).